MAY 20 ― According to reports, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has retained the position of chairman of Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (Bersatu) while Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin faces off two others for the president's post.
The two vying are for the president’s post against Muhyiddin are Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir vying and an unknown Mohd Faiz Azli Sham.
The deputy president's post sees three candidates ― incumbent secretary-general Datuk Marzuki Yahaya, Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Ahmad Faizal Azumu and Anas Akashah Nazri from Ampang.
The announcements to the media were made by Bersatu party election committee chairman Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar after nominations were closed for the party polls at 3pm at the party headquarters on March 16.
Syed Hamid then announced that all elections, due on April 18, had been postponed indefinitely due to the Registrar of Societies' ruling that all meetings and gatherings be put on hold until June 30.
Syed Hamid further said that the Annual General Meeting of Bersatu due from June 26 to 28 would also be postponed until further notice.
Despite the announcements, reports surfaced yesterday that in a letter to Bersatu’s working secretary Capt (Rtd) Muhammad Suhaimi Yahya dated May 5, the Registrar of Societies (RoS) said that Muhyiddin, the party’s president, is now the acting chairman, per Article 16.9 of the party’s constitution.
Clearly, the Bersatu chairman’s position is a subject of dispute between those aligned to Muhyiddin and those aligned to Dr Mahathir.
Now, the governing law is the Societies Act 1966 (Act 335). Section 16(1) states that if the RoS is of the opinion that a dispute has occurred among the members or office-bearers of a registered society, the RoS may serve notice on the society requiring the society, within one month of the service of such notice, to produce to him evidence of the settlement of any such dispute and of the proper appointment of the lawful office-bearers of the society or of the institution of proceedings for the settlement of such dispute.
Section 16(2) states that if any such notice is not complied with to the satisfaction of the RoS within the period of one month or any extension allowed by the RoS, the latter may take steps to cancel the registration of the society under section 13.
The ambit of section 16(1) was considered by the Federal Court not too long ago in Pendaftar Pertubuhan v Datuk Justin Jinggut [2013] 3 MLJ 16. Abdull Hamid Embong FCJ (delivering judgment of the court) said:
“On a literal interpretation of s 16(1), we are of the view that the RoS is not empowered to inquire into the validity of [meetings of the disputing parties] in order to form an opinion regarding the existence of a dispute. The RoS merely needs to act on the documents presented to him to objectively decide if a dispute had arisen. Once he is satisfied, and here we say on a subjective test, that a dispute had in fact occurred, he may straight away form such an opinion. We say that this is his only statutory duty.”
“The RoS need not inquire into the meetings to determine if they are in compliance with [the party’s] constitution. No detective work is required of the RoS to form this opinion. Otherwise the office of the RoS would be bogged down to make unnecessary inquires each time he is faced with an information of a dispute having occurred in a political society.”
“Under section 16(1), the power given to the RoS is to direct a society to settle its dispute. There is no power to determine if meetings held by the disputing parties are valid or not. The RoS need not make a finding. He merely comes to an opinion of the existence of a dispute. And this he needs to do as quickly as possible. Otherwise, the fate of a society will be left in a limbo, and all its activities suspended.”
“To make inquiries into those meetings … would delay the whole process. The other rationale … is that any dispute between the parties in a society should, if possible, be determined by the members of that society itself.”
“We say that the RoS role is one of non-interference in a dispute situation involving a political society. This is unlike the situation involving Mutual Benefit Societies where the RoS is empowered to hear and determine any disputes.”
“Section 16(1) thus has to be given a narrow interpretation limiting the scope of the duty of the RoS to that of only giving an opinion to the existence of a dispute and directing that society to settle the dispute by serving a notice to it. And in the event of a non-compliance of that notice the RoS may de-register the society under section 13(1)(c)(ix).”
Clearly, there is nothing in section 16(1) which states that the RoS shall determine the dispute or adjudicate upon it.
It is humbly submitted that the RoS letter appears to do so and therefore offends section 16(1) of Act 335.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
